Is it possible to teach someone to care about something, or can you only set aflame a passion that already lays dormant within them? Can you inspire a desire for change in someone who sees the topic as irrelevantly at best?
Sometimes, there are things that I believe mean the world... and I try and convey my passion and conviction about that topic to someone else... only to be greeted with blank eyes of boredom. At first, I thought it was my failure to communicate the significance of something... but now I am beginning to think that perhaps there are topics that the majority of the people I come in contact with simply do not care about at all.
In theory, this makes sense to me... I mean, surely there are topics that a person could tell me about that I wouldn't find fascinating... even thought right now I cant think of one, lol. See, it is just weird to me, this entire mindset of apathy. If a person approaches me and shows passion and enthusiasm about something, no matter how naturally mundane that subject may normally appear to me... because of their care for it, I will suddenly start to really care about that topic. It is weird, but true. In a conversation, there is little that does not interest me.
That is why, I suppose, I simply can not grasp how a person who was within 5 years of my own age could be apathetic towards the very real truth that their society was slowly brainwashing and (for lack of a better word) soul-washing them into depersonalized machines.... and yet, today it happened. Today, I tried talking to my class about the necessity to find truth when you are a product of a brainwashed society (including yourself)... and yet it seemed irrelevant at best to them.
I got them to agree that they were brainwashed... and yet, they seemed generally disinterested in how to "unbrainwash" their self... which just blows my mind.
But, such is life, right?
haha! :-)
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Random question for all...
As it turns out... I am not very good at communicating... and I tend to tick people off rather easily. That being said, and admitted (no need to drive the stake any deeper, lol)... I have a question for you all.
Think about the people that you like to listen to... I mean, the people that just draw you in. They can be celebrities, YouTube stars, random comedians... whatever. Now, I am not talking about the one-hit-wonders like that amazing guitar player on YouTube, or that MadTV skit Can I Have Your Number... Rather, I am talking about that guy or girl that you Subscribe to on YouTube... or that actor or actress who's movies you go to without even caring what the movie is about... I want to know: What are some characteristics about them that really stand out to you? What is it about those people that make you enjoy listening to them?
They say 80% of communication is non-verbal... and I am searching for those non-verbal attributes that separates the guy that you enjoy being around from the guy you want to throw "knives and other sharp objects" at... haha
Think about the people that you like to listen to... I mean, the people that just draw you in. They can be celebrities, YouTube stars, random comedians... whatever. Now, I am not talking about the one-hit-wonders like that amazing guitar player on YouTube, or that MadTV skit Can I Have Your Number... Rather, I am talking about that guy or girl that you Subscribe to on YouTube... or that actor or actress who's movies you go to without even caring what the movie is about... I want to know: What are some characteristics about them that really stand out to you? What is it about those people that make you enjoy listening to them?
They say 80% of communication is non-verbal... and I am searching for those non-verbal attributes that separates the guy that you enjoy being around from the guy you want to throw "knives and other sharp objects" at... haha
YouTube vLogging Here I come!!
Okay, so I have made 3+ videos now... and they are even public (Oh my! )... but for some reason, I am still hesitant to put a link to them on this blog...
I dont know why I am feeling all paranoid about this, but there is just something sacred and personal about this blog... and those who read it... I afraid to link this to the world.... would just be an explosion of horribleness, hahaha!
Hmmmm, time will tell.
I dont know why I am feeling all paranoid about this, but there is just something sacred and personal about this blog... and those who read it... I afraid to link this to the world.... would just be an explosion of horribleness, hahaha!
Hmmmm, time will tell.
Logic vs. Emotion
I am in the middle of reading a book that a friend let me borrow a while back... granted, I should have finished it a while ago, but alas, I procrastinate. Anywho, I recently came upon a section that really meant a lot to me, and so, I feel I will share its thoughts with you.
Generally speaking, people prefer emotional and subtle arguments to straight forward, logical arguments. This may make perfect sense to you, but please refrain from yelling your "DUH"s at me, as this is actually earth shattering to me, lol. I had a post a while back about how I was finding it extremely difficult to communicate with people. In fact, I think I had several posts on the topic. Essentially, I could not figure out why on earth it was possible to convey a single point to someone. Well, it turns out that I was going about it all the wrong way...
In conversation, for the last several months, I have divorced myself from emotional persuasion and subtle manipulation so that I could speak logically and directly with people. This was my way of showing them respect. Instead of using subtle vocal queues, or various emotional tactics to persuade someone, I was using simple and bland logic. Well, as it turns out, when you are blunt and logical with people, it actually offends them.
Now, I am sure at this point, many of you are like "HEY, I like blunt logic"... however, I would argue that you are probably fooling yourself. Or, at least, I was most certainly fooling myself to believe such a statement. While I wanted fairness and openness, what I did not expect was such a great divorce from emotion and passion. Suddenly, I found myself talking about death as if it were some abstract concept, instead of the end of a being's life.
For some brief background... there are probably some things that you should know about me. When I was a kid, I would question everything. More or less, I was this great funnel for "How the World Works", lol. That affinity for knowledge, however, was curtailed by several social concepts around me. Specifically, that a man can not survive reading books all day, lol. Fortunately for me, I was never allowed to camp out in my ivory tower, as my family was and is a very goal driven, success oriented family. When it came to volitle moments in my life, those times when I wanted to hide in my tower to either cry alone, or thrown down rocks from above, (especially once I entered high school) my parents were generally unforgiving towards me being emotionally reclusive. Whether it was something that made me upset or sad, both my father and mother always "resolved" the situation by reminding me that in the "real world", time does not stand still while you work out your problems. Now, in their defense, I do understand where they are coming from. They did a lot of hard work to get where they are at, and they do not want me to be controlled by my emotions in so far as it would hurt my productivity. Essentially, they were saying to me that it is okay to feel sad or alone, but those feelings should not make you hide under your bed.... To be honest with you all, I totally agree with that assessment... even though it was not easy to accept at the time. However, being the overachiever and perfectionist that I am... I believe I took that suggestion to far.
Approximately 7-8 months ago, I ended a relationship that I thought was going to last me my entire life. In ending that relationship, in many ways, I felt like I was giving up on love, on joy, on hope, and on my happy ending. This was one of those moments when I really wanted to hide up in my ivory tower and cry myself to sleep. However, I think I may have done something even worse. Instead of crying in my tower, I read... a lot. More or less, I just shut down emotionally, and decided that logic and reason were my gods. While I still held my faith in God, I most certainly became twisted as an individual. Within a few months, I found myself, for lack of a better term, thinking like an theistic agnostic, or perhaps even an atheist would. These thoughts were not pertaining to God, but rather to the way I lived my life.
I understood that God would love me no matter what kind of person I was, and so I began to question some fundament things about my lifestyle. For example, why I was not drinking.( For those of you who dont know, many years ago, I decided to wait until I was married to drink (for several personal reasons)). However, with my relationship gone, and much hope feeling abandoned, I started to wonder why I was not drinking. Now, just so you know, I am not talking about getting drunk, but rather just socially drinking. Also, I started to question why I was not just "dating around" with not specific goal for marriage. To me, it seemed like the thing to do for people my age, and I knew it would make me feel better, and yet I could not bring myself to do it... and I just did not know why.
Fortunately I was smart enough to realize that I was in a fractured state of mind, and so I did not allow myself to act on any of my decisions for that period of time. One I started teaching, I found joy and hope again in life. My knowledge and reason became extroverted instead of introverted... In time, I felt more confident in many of my personal reasons for abstinence (in many areas in my life). However, the general logic still remained to a large extent. I still felt like logic and reason were far better gods than emotion... and that when it came to conversations, they were best served cold and dry.
For several months, I taught debate at Metro. I taught on the issues, the philosophy, the evidence... you name it, we discussed it. Then came regionals, and I just knew that we were a shoe-in for state. The person who would later win regionals was using one of my sample cases that I presented to the class, verbatim. (his entire case, I defeated in class as an example, long before this tournament). When the awards were announced, I was in complete disbelief that none of my students even made it to the finals.
However, now that is all making a lot more sense to me. The first day after class, I returned and told them something that even I at the time didnt fully understand: "It doesnt matter how right, or intelligent you are... If you cant convey your Truth to a judge, you become irrelevant".
Their struggle was my struggle. Their failure was my failure. I had created intelligent, emotionless machines of Truth and logic. They knew their material better than anyone else. They found ways to be right, on both sides of the resolution... and yet to the world, we were nothing but monsters. It is not surprise that one of my debaters got really low speaking points, even though she is an excellent speaker. That only happens when you piss a judge off.
Through months of logic and reasoning and training, they were no better off than myself. They were right, but irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Now, all of that is about to change. I was once a very charismatic person, and I believe I would like that lifestyle again. It has been months since I have seen myself without dark circles around my eyes... and I think it is about time to remember the reasons why we live and why we even debate in the first place. Debate is suppose to be about conveying truth, not about defeating someone else. Debate is suppose to be about leading people to the light, and not simply being "right" on a given issue. Debate is suppose to be a search, not an Army march. Debate is suppose to be a dance, and instead I have been treating it like a machine.
In life, we do not give out attention or respect to the "right" or the incredibly intelligent... but rather, most people turn their ears to those that draw them in... those who seem to radiate a light that we want. There is a reason why we care what celebrities think about the presidential race... and that reason has nothing to do with their expertise in the field.
In teaching people to "persuade", I was focused on the arguments and the logic, and yet was ignoring the fact that 80% of communication is non-verbal. In the end, I will blame it on me being a man... as any woman knows that "it is not what you say, but how you say it"... :-)
I believe it is time for me to rethink how I am going about communicating to people... and it is about time that I start to capitalize on the skills of my persuasive female friends... seduction, here I come! :-)
Oh, and in response to my last question, this is why I am doing a vLog... because 80% of communication is non-verbal... and therefore text is just too limiting.
Generally speaking, people prefer emotional and subtle arguments to straight forward, logical arguments. This may make perfect sense to you, but please refrain from yelling your "DUH"s at me, as this is actually earth shattering to me, lol. I had a post a while back about how I was finding it extremely difficult to communicate with people. In fact, I think I had several posts on the topic. Essentially, I could not figure out why on earth it was possible to convey a single point to someone. Well, it turns out that I was going about it all the wrong way...
In conversation, for the last several months, I have divorced myself from emotional persuasion and subtle manipulation so that I could speak logically and directly with people. This was my way of showing them respect. Instead of using subtle vocal queues, or various emotional tactics to persuade someone, I was using simple and bland logic. Well, as it turns out, when you are blunt and logical with people, it actually offends them.
Now, I am sure at this point, many of you are like "HEY, I like blunt logic"... however, I would argue that you are probably fooling yourself. Or, at least, I was most certainly fooling myself to believe such a statement. While I wanted fairness and openness, what I did not expect was such a great divorce from emotion and passion. Suddenly, I found myself talking about death as if it were some abstract concept, instead of the end of a being's life.
For some brief background... there are probably some things that you should know about me. When I was a kid, I would question everything. More or less, I was this great funnel for "How the World Works", lol. That affinity for knowledge, however, was curtailed by several social concepts around me. Specifically, that a man can not survive reading books all day, lol. Fortunately for me, I was never allowed to camp out in my ivory tower, as my family was and is a very goal driven, success oriented family. When it came to volitle moments in my life, those times when I wanted to hide in my tower to either cry alone, or thrown down rocks from above, (especially once I entered high school) my parents were generally unforgiving towards me being emotionally reclusive. Whether it was something that made me upset or sad, both my father and mother always "resolved" the situation by reminding me that in the "real world", time does not stand still while you work out your problems. Now, in their defense, I do understand where they are coming from. They did a lot of hard work to get where they are at, and they do not want me to be controlled by my emotions in so far as it would hurt my productivity. Essentially, they were saying to me that it is okay to feel sad or alone, but those feelings should not make you hide under your bed.... To be honest with you all, I totally agree with that assessment... even though it was not easy to accept at the time. However, being the overachiever and perfectionist that I am... I believe I took that suggestion to far.
Approximately 7-8 months ago, I ended a relationship that I thought was going to last me my entire life. In ending that relationship, in many ways, I felt like I was giving up on love, on joy, on hope, and on my happy ending. This was one of those moments when I really wanted to hide up in my ivory tower and cry myself to sleep. However, I think I may have done something even worse. Instead of crying in my tower, I read... a lot. More or less, I just shut down emotionally, and decided that logic and reason were my gods. While I still held my faith in God, I most certainly became twisted as an individual. Within a few months, I found myself, for lack of a better term, thinking like an theistic agnostic, or perhaps even an atheist would. These thoughts were not pertaining to God, but rather to the way I lived my life.
I understood that God would love me no matter what kind of person I was, and so I began to question some fundament things about my lifestyle. For example, why I was not drinking.( For those of you who dont know, many years ago, I decided to wait until I was married to drink (for several personal reasons)). However, with my relationship gone, and much hope feeling abandoned, I started to wonder why I was not drinking. Now, just so you know, I am not talking about getting drunk, but rather just socially drinking. Also, I started to question why I was not just "dating around" with not specific goal for marriage. To me, it seemed like the thing to do for people my age, and I knew it would make me feel better, and yet I could not bring myself to do it... and I just did not know why.
Fortunately I was smart enough to realize that I was in a fractured state of mind, and so I did not allow myself to act on any of my decisions for that period of time. One I started teaching, I found joy and hope again in life. My knowledge and reason became extroverted instead of introverted... In time, I felt more confident in many of my personal reasons for abstinence (in many areas in my life). However, the general logic still remained to a large extent. I still felt like logic and reason were far better gods than emotion... and that when it came to conversations, they were best served cold and dry.
For several months, I taught debate at Metro. I taught on the issues, the philosophy, the evidence... you name it, we discussed it. Then came regionals, and I just knew that we were a shoe-in for state. The person who would later win regionals was using one of my sample cases that I presented to the class, verbatim. (his entire case, I defeated in class as an example, long before this tournament). When the awards were announced, I was in complete disbelief that none of my students even made it to the finals.
However, now that is all making a lot more sense to me. The first day after class, I returned and told them something that even I at the time didnt fully understand: "It doesnt matter how right, or intelligent you are... If you cant convey your Truth to a judge, you become irrelevant".
Their struggle was my struggle. Their failure was my failure. I had created intelligent, emotionless machines of Truth and logic. They knew their material better than anyone else. They found ways to be right, on both sides of the resolution... and yet to the world, we were nothing but monsters. It is not surprise that one of my debaters got really low speaking points, even though she is an excellent speaker. That only happens when you piss a judge off.
Through months of logic and reasoning and training, they were no better off than myself. They were right, but irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Now, all of that is about to change. I was once a very charismatic person, and I believe I would like that lifestyle again. It has been months since I have seen myself without dark circles around my eyes... and I think it is about time to remember the reasons why we live and why we even debate in the first place. Debate is suppose to be about conveying truth, not about defeating someone else. Debate is suppose to be about leading people to the light, and not simply being "right" on a given issue. Debate is suppose to be a search, not an Army march. Debate is suppose to be a dance, and instead I have been treating it like a machine.
In life, we do not give out attention or respect to the "right" or the incredibly intelligent... but rather, most people turn their ears to those that draw them in... those who seem to radiate a light that we want. There is a reason why we care what celebrities think about the presidential race... and that reason has nothing to do with their expertise in the field.
In teaching people to "persuade", I was focused on the arguments and the logic, and yet was ignoring the fact that 80% of communication is non-verbal. In the end, I will blame it on me being a man... as any woman knows that "it is not what you say, but how you say it"... :-)
I believe it is time for me to rethink how I am going about communicating to people... and it is about time that I start to capitalize on the skills of my persuasive female friends... seduction, here I come! :-)
Oh, and in response to my last question, this is why I am doing a vLog... because 80% of communication is non-verbal... and therefore text is just too limiting.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
vLog
I have officially started my own vLog... and when it doesnt seem so silly, I will post a link to it on here... for now though, it is my private luxury, lol.
Question of the Day:
Why do you think people do vLogs instead of, or in addition to blogging?
Question of the Day:
Why do you think people do vLogs instead of, or in addition to blogging?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
socializing gone right
I would really like to have better control of my social interactions... for whatever reason, my natural personality tends to upset people... a side effect that I wish I could avoid. Right now, in life, I am working on being more aware of the way that I interact with individuals, and thus I am trying to optimize myself as a social being.
Any tips?
Oh, and if anybody just so happens to be really good at organizing rooms or mowing grass... I could use help in both those areas too... :-)
Any tips?
Oh, and if anybody just so happens to be really good at organizing rooms or mowing grass... I could use help in both those areas too... :-)
Monday, April 07, 2008
well hello there...
I recently decided that I would like to live life with a she-elf... I just think they are incredibly graceful and attractive... or, at least this one is... hehe
:-)
Sunday, April 06, 2008
dystopia => truth
It is amazing how many truth parallels I am finding between the various utopias and dystopias I have watched/read and what I consider to be True about the "real world"
Tonight, I watched Avalon... for those of you who have not seen the movie, more or less, it is about a society where people participate in these incredibly realistic video games, and that in the end the video game becomes more real to them than actual reality. In the final level, you are put on "Level Real", where you are now apparently in an even more vividly "real" and appealing life that you live outside of the game, and your end goal is murder. Understandably, this movie can be taken many ways, but I will only speak of the way that I took the movie.
First, the opening lines of the Movie:
In this projected dystopia, there were various players of the game... warriors, thiefs, mages, and apparently, bishops. The main character of the film, Ash (interesting name, think about it) was a warrior and she was in search of the level Special A. The way the game worked is you started on Level D (I think), and made your way up the alphabet to Level A. In the world of battle, many chose to fight as teams, but she chose to go solo, which gave her greater flexibility, but less reliability. Eventually, she became one of the best fighters of Level A, but still wanted more. She was after the rumored, "Special A" Level.
Through speculation and investigation, she game to the understanding that the only way to Special A was through "the ghost", and the only way to locate "the ghost" was by either becoming a bishop herself, or to team up with a bishop that was even greater than herself. Eventually, for the sake of time, she chooses the later, and connects with a Bishop that makes her look like a novice (beating her last mission in less time and with more precision, almost to prove he was better than her, and perhaps to draw her into him). Once she decides to seek the Bishop, she is taken through a crazy chain of events. On this path, she discovers a few important things. First, that this Bishop is "in the game, but not of the game". He is a player, with allies that are not other characters. He posses skill beyond hers, and claims to be a protector of the integrity of the game. When they engage in combat together (as a team), he does not go after the big robot that is their ultimate target, but rather supports her and her movements, killing only to protect her in her journey, eventually allowing her to defeat the robot. (Even once she makes it to Special A level, he says that he did not bring her there, but rather, she brought herself. )
Eventually, "the ghost" appears (after her victory in a Level A game with Bishop), and she must engage the ghost to be granted passage to "Level Real" (essentially Special A level). Once there, she is told that this would be a much harder test of her talent, and that there was no time limit, only one choice to make. If she succeeds, she would win the game and be given a chance to be a "High Bishop", just like the one that helped her on her journey to that crossroad. If she does not succeed, than she dies and vanishes into nothingness, or rather "brain-deadness".
The crazy part of this film starts here. See, the entire film, up until this point, was filmed in sepia/ yellow screen. There were strange distortions on the color, and the society was projected to be unbelievably dismal. The weird part is that in "Level Real", the color of the entire movie normalizes, and things finally look "real to the audience". (Sorry for the Spoilers here), but the truth is that such a level was more appealing, better than her current life, and where Murphy (her friend) chose to live, instead of the virtual world of the lower levels, or the real world as he knew it. At the end of the movie, however, she makes her choice, and it is unveiled that this apparent "real world" was not real at all, but in fact just a much better temptation for an alternate reality. (re-read the opening quote now please)
So, my analysis starts here. I think this movie can be a loose analogy for reality. Specifically, I think "the game" is one's quest here on earth for a relationship with God, and "Avalon", or "beating the game", is acceptance of a relationship with God, and thus a promised eternity with Him.
Think about this...On track to Avalon, a warrior must be aided by a "Higher Bishop" so they can find "the ghost" (who is a gate to the Level Real, the level of a single choice to determine your fate). This ghost, I would liken to the Holy Spirit, as He is the one that allows us to make a pseudo-prefallen mindset choice to accept or reject God. The "Higher Bishops", I do believe then, can be compared to be current believers. Not face-name Christians, but True believers. Even the movie makes this distinction when Ash asks if she can just find any Bishop to lead her to the ghost. To that, her friend replies: "No....there were apparently parties trying to make a name for themselves who quickly converted someone to bishop and then went running around on foolish "ghost hunting" expeditions, but it was an utter failure." In the end, what was necessary was a Higher Bishop, someone of a skill level even higher than her own (which was nearly un-heard of, because she was suppose to be one of the best of the best) to fight with her so that the ghost would appear. To clarify now, the "path to Avalon (which was the victory goal of the game)" was that one must encounter a Bishop, (or become one their self) so that they could, through "the ghost" reach a final level where a simple decision was to be made. That decision, would then determine their eternal fate. Come on! This is totally the gospel!
Outside of being introduced to the ghost with the aid of a Higher Bishop, one can even encounter the ghost their self, through becoming a bishop their self... which, according to the Higher Bishop, requires one to sort through an enormous amount of life experiences and data on their own... until they finally reach a point where the ghost finds them and they get to make their decision.
(Now, the one qualm I do have with this theologically is all the work needed to find the ghost... and the whole reality being a game, lol... but other than that, this seems like a close analogy to salvation, or rather, the decision to live a live with Christ, or to choose to not live a life with Christ... to live in the apparent "Level Real", or to make the hard choice and choose that actual Real world, and also "Avalon".)
One of the opening quotes of the movie is the main character, introducing herself by saying:
At the end of the day/ game, we as warriors of Ash (like dust, only burnt, or fallen... think about it) are given a choice... and both sides seem tempting. One one hand, we have a reality that seems far better than even the reality that we know. Parties and success unimaginable. Murphy chose this path, and defined it as his reality. Murphy chose "Level Real" to be his home, and it eventually cost him his existence.
Ash on the other hand chose a different path. Through her own distinguishment, with the aid of the Higher Bishop and the gateway of the ghost, she choose Avalon and actual reality. She chose a noble victory, and chose to go against all apparent logic, and rejected the Level Real as reality. (I can not stress to you enough, those who have not seen the film, that at the moment of her decision, Level Real really seemed like the only true reality) For her own reasons, she made her choice, and was granted a life in Avalon, and the opportunity to become a Higher Bishop that would bring balance to the game, and help others find their way to Avalon.
This is totally life in the Kingdom of God here on Earth! We are fallen people, soaked in the sins of the world... but by the blood of Christ, we are set free from the bondage of our sin! By the aid of the Holy Spirit, we are allowed to make the choice to accept or reject Christ, by our own decision, and not simply by manipulation from God or from the sinful world. Once we have made our decision, we are not swept up to heaven, but rather, allowed to come back into the game, to help others on their quest for Avalon! Seriously, this was an amazing movie.
When the movie first started, and the Higher Bishop was seen as an observant warrior to Ash's game, and at that moment, I said that I was him. After seeing the movie, I still think I am like a Higher Bishop. Right now, I feel it is my place in life to help others make the good choice in Level Real so that they can find Avalon.
And that is it. :-)
Tonight, I watched Avalon... for those of you who have not seen the movie, more or less, it is about a society where people participate in these incredibly realistic video games, and that in the end the video game becomes more real to them than actual reality. In the final level, you are put on "Level Real", where you are now apparently in an even more vividly "real" and appealing life that you live outside of the game, and your end goal is murder. Understandably, this movie can be taken many ways, but I will only speak of the way that I took the movie.
First, the opening lines of the Movie:
The near future. Some people deal with their disillusionment by seeking out illusions of their own - in an illegal virtual reality war game. Its simulated thrills and deaths are compulsive and addictive. Some players, working in teams called 'parties' even earn their living from the game. The game has its dangers. Sometimes it can leave a player brain-dead, needing constant medical care. Such victims are called 'unreturned'. The game is named after the legendary island where the souls of departed heroes come to rest: Avalon.
In this projected dystopia, there were various players of the game... warriors, thiefs, mages, and apparently, bishops. The main character of the film, Ash (interesting name, think about it) was a warrior and she was in search of the level Special A. The way the game worked is you started on Level D (I think), and made your way up the alphabet to Level A. In the world of battle, many chose to fight as teams, but she chose to go solo, which gave her greater flexibility, but less reliability. Eventually, she became one of the best fighters of Level A, but still wanted more. She was after the rumored, "Special A" Level.
Through speculation and investigation, she game to the understanding that the only way to Special A was through "the ghost", and the only way to locate "the ghost" was by either becoming a bishop herself, or to team up with a bishop that was even greater than herself. Eventually, for the sake of time, she chooses the later, and connects with a Bishop that makes her look like a novice (beating her last mission in less time and with more precision, almost to prove he was better than her, and perhaps to draw her into him). Once she decides to seek the Bishop, she is taken through a crazy chain of events. On this path, she discovers a few important things. First, that this Bishop is "in the game, but not of the game". He is a player, with allies that are not other characters. He posses skill beyond hers, and claims to be a protector of the integrity of the game. When they engage in combat together (as a team), he does not go after the big robot that is their ultimate target, but rather supports her and her movements, killing only to protect her in her journey, eventually allowing her to defeat the robot. (Even once she makes it to Special A level, he says that he did not bring her there, but rather, she brought herself. )
Eventually, "the ghost" appears (after her victory in a Level A game with Bishop), and she must engage the ghost to be granted passage to "Level Real" (essentially Special A level). Once there, she is told that this would be a much harder test of her talent, and that there was no time limit, only one choice to make. If she succeeds, she would win the game and be given a chance to be a "High Bishop", just like the one that helped her on her journey to that crossroad. If she does not succeed, than she dies and vanishes into nothingness, or rather "brain-deadness".
The crazy part of this film starts here. See, the entire film, up until this point, was filmed in sepia/ yellow screen. There were strange distortions on the color, and the society was projected to be unbelievably dismal. The weird part is that in "Level Real", the color of the entire movie normalizes, and things finally look "real to the audience". (Sorry for the Spoilers here), but the truth is that such a level was more appealing, better than her current life, and where Murphy (her friend) chose to live, instead of the virtual world of the lower levels, or the real world as he knew it. At the end of the movie, however, she makes her choice, and it is unveiled that this apparent "real world" was not real at all, but in fact just a much better temptation for an alternate reality. (re-read the opening quote now please)
So, my analysis starts here. I think this movie can be a loose analogy for reality. Specifically, I think "the game" is one's quest here on earth for a relationship with God, and "Avalon", or "beating the game", is acceptance of a relationship with God, and thus a promised eternity with Him.
Think about this...On track to Avalon, a warrior must be aided by a "Higher Bishop" so they can find "the ghost" (who is a gate to the Level Real, the level of a single choice to determine your fate). This ghost, I would liken to the Holy Spirit, as He is the one that allows us to make a pseudo-prefallen mindset choice to accept or reject God. The "Higher Bishops", I do believe then, can be compared to be current believers. Not face-name Christians, but True believers. Even the movie makes this distinction when Ash asks if she can just find any Bishop to lead her to the ghost. To that, her friend replies: "No....there were apparently parties trying to make a name for themselves who quickly converted someone to bishop and then went running around on foolish "ghost hunting" expeditions, but it was an utter failure." In the end, what was necessary was a Higher Bishop, someone of a skill level even higher than her own (which was nearly un-heard of, because she was suppose to be one of the best of the best) to fight with her so that the ghost would appear. To clarify now, the "path to Avalon (which was the victory goal of the game)" was that one must encounter a Bishop, (or become one their self) so that they could, through "the ghost" reach a final level where a simple decision was to be made. That decision, would then determine their eternal fate. Come on! This is totally the gospel!
Outside of being introduced to the ghost with the aid of a Higher Bishop, one can even encounter the ghost their self, through becoming a bishop their self... which, according to the Higher Bishop, requires one to sort through an enormous amount of life experiences and data on their own... until they finally reach a point where the ghost finds them and they get to make their decision.
(Now, the one qualm I do have with this theologically is all the work needed to find the ghost... and the whole reality being a game, lol... but other than that, this seems like a close analogy to salvation, or rather, the decision to live a live with Christ, or to choose to not live a life with Christ... to live in the apparent "Level Real", or to make the hard choice and choose that actual Real world, and also "Avalon".)
One of the opening quotes of the movie is the main character, introducing herself by saying:
"Some people think it has no end; you could play for ever and never see the last level. It seems pointless - a game without a goal - but there is a goal; to go beyond the game - to something more"
At the end of the day/ game, we as warriors of Ash (like dust, only burnt, or fallen... think about it) are given a choice... and both sides seem tempting. One one hand, we have a reality that seems far better than even the reality that we know. Parties and success unimaginable. Murphy chose this path, and defined it as his reality. Murphy chose "Level Real" to be his home, and it eventually cost him his existence.
Ash on the other hand chose a different path. Through her own distinguishment, with the aid of the Higher Bishop and the gateway of the ghost, she choose Avalon and actual reality. She chose a noble victory, and chose to go against all apparent logic, and rejected the Level Real as reality. (I can not stress to you enough, those who have not seen the film, that at the moment of her decision, Level Real really seemed like the only true reality) For her own reasons, she made her choice, and was granted a life in Avalon, and the opportunity to become a Higher Bishop that would bring balance to the game, and help others find their way to Avalon.
This is totally life in the Kingdom of God here on Earth! We are fallen people, soaked in the sins of the world... but by the blood of Christ, we are set free from the bondage of our sin! By the aid of the Holy Spirit, we are allowed to make the choice to accept or reject Christ, by our own decision, and not simply by manipulation from God or from the sinful world. Once we have made our decision, we are not swept up to heaven, but rather, allowed to come back into the game, to help others on their quest for Avalon! Seriously, this was an amazing movie.
When the movie first started, and the Higher Bishop was seen as an observant warrior to Ash's game, and at that moment, I said that I was him. After seeing the movie, I still think I am like a Higher Bishop. Right now, I feel it is my place in life to help others make the good choice in Level Real so that they can find Avalon.
And that is it. :-)
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Truth, my findings
My anonymous friend recently left a comment that I would like to respond to for the purpose of defining what I believe to be Truth, and more specifically, what evidence I have of this Truth. The comment was the following:
The proposition that logic, evidence and experience determining rightness, ironically, is one of the biggest lessons that I learned in debate. And as such, it is something I have been giving a good deal of thought to over the last month or two (in trying to teach debate at Metro)... and this comment just so happens to illustrate something that I would like to challenge with a theory of my own.
With regards to "right" and also with regards to those "better", or rather, those more knowledgeable or more skilled in discourse or philosophizing than me... I will respond with a story:
When I was at Grove City College, I had this theology professor, an older guy, I think in his 70s, maybe 60s, who taught three of my theology classes. He had his doctorate from Princeton, and was a devout Calvinist. With regards to predestination, he had books and books of evidence, as well as extrapolations from scripture, to prove that he was "right". He has been teaching college for 30 years, he is one of the most intelligent theologians at Grove City, and his office is simply a labyrinth of books at best. I must have listened to hours and hours of a dissertation style proposition and defense of several concepts within scripture, and the resultant truths that he concluded, from years of study and experience, as to the Truth of our relationship with God, with man, and with ourself.... and yet, at the end of the day, he was wrong.
I say this plainly because the idea is simple. This is not an exception to the rule. There are thousands of theologians around the world who have proven their truth. All it takes is a listening ear to know that God does not exist, that God does exist, that God does not care about humanity, that God does care about humanity, that salvation is a myth, that salvation is eternal life with God, that it comes by faith, that it comes by work, that Jesus was a prophet, that Jesus was the son of God.
It appears that rightness is sloppy at best in the field of philosophy and theology. The rules of math do not seem to apply. (Ironically, the rules of math, that there is this provable right and wrong, only apply in simple math. Ask any person who has studied advanced math or physics, and they will tell you that anything beyond simply math is all guess work and approximations at best.)
The point I am trying to contend here is simple. The biggest thing that I learned from being in debate is that: just because someone wins an argument or has more legitimate evidence, does not mean they are right.
Tragic, I know. It kind of rocks the boat of Truth. The reason why I contend this is simple. I do not want to think that anything I hold to be right or true is such because it is an extrapolation of evidence or experience. While I hold both of those in high regards, because of my knowledge of their manipulability, I can not find in them adequate grounds to hold something to be in the realm of "I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right". To me, evidence, experience, and even logic itself is flexible. I should know, as I have often been the flexor to it time and again over the last several years. Morality included, ask any history major, fluxes with time.
Well, then, what are we left with... Should we simply become but existentialist, believing truth and value to only exist as we feel it should? Do we try and define our own reality from the columns of our insanity? I do not think that is or only option.
To me, as it will forever be, Truth resonates within the soul. This is not a contention, an opinion, or a proposition. This is a fact, or more appropriately, a Truth. In the Kingdom of God, Truth resonates within our spirit.
Today I watched Equilibrium, a dystopia wherein society is "saved" by being stripped of its emotion. Such a decision was necessary, as emotion leads to hate and thus war. The contention was simply, that humanity, as a race, will not survive emotion.... one of the primary contention of the film is that emotion is what makes life worth living. A caste or level system is established, wherein basic human function is at the bottom of the ladder, with emotion being at the top. While one can exist without emotion, such a disposition also strips them of their identity and humanity. Without emotion, life becomes pointless.
On the same tune, I will project my own theory, as an extrapolation from the Truth that I know about this world.... While basic human existence is at the bottom, and emotion is surely necessary to be fully human, I do not find it hard to contend that operation within the spiritual realm is what makes life worth living, and thus the top rung of the social latter. To me, as marriage is to illustrate a relationship between man and God, I do also believe that human emotion is to illustrate a relationship between the flesh and the spirit. Marriage demonstrates a bond between two people, and thus demonstrates our bond with God. In the same way, human emotion demonstrates that there is an unpredictable, intangible to life that makes it worth living, thus showing us that there is a Truth that exist outside of our capacity for understanding.
Simply put, it would take a foolish man to believe that he could understand the world. It is wise man that knows that he can not understand the workings of the world, and thus intelligently adjusts his disposition accordingly. The release of cognitive control of our micro universe is not an act of stupidity or surrender, but rather an act of intelligence. While it may seem that the safest way to live life is without emotion, Equilibrium strongly contends that emotion is worth the risk. In the same way, while it most certainly seems that it is safest to live life rejecting things of the spirit, the kingdom of God contends that the ways God are certainly worth the risk.
In the here and now, the Bible speaks of a war, not of peace. While I certainly view piece as our target, and strongly contended that in the hereafter, there will be eternal peace with God, until then, I believe that our strategies of hiding our heads in the sand simply will not do. Unfortunately for us, there is no Canada to move away to in the fight for Truth. In reality, there is the choice to fight, or to slip away into nothingness, eternally forgotten.
In response to Anonymous, I assure you, I will be teaching only that which I know to be True. However, I should also inform you that such Truth was not arrived upon because of any book, or scripture, or life lesson. Rather, it was a culmination of all of the above, with its Truth sorted by the resonance I feel within myself as part of the Kingdom of God.
****************************
I do offer one final comment to anonymous.... I do value peer input in life. While I do believe that by the spirit, we can distinguish Truth from untruth, the does not mean that I or we can spontaneously construct or regurgitate truth. For whatever reason, I do strongly believe that we are social creatures, instructed to live a social life.
With that in mind, I would ask you for your continued input on my earth shattering ideas. And please, if you objected to one of my ideas, give me convincing reasons why, so that we can discuss concepts in their entirety and not simply throw around shocking phrases or titles like only amateurs would. If logic, evidence, scripture, and experience are what you believe to determine "rightness", then when you object to the rightness of any of my ideas, please respond with adequate quantities of each so that we can have a full conversation.
I think you're intelligent enough to know not to teach people things that you know to be untruths. That would go against the Christianity that you hold so dear...I want you to make sure that you're right. Justified, backed up by Scripture and experience, I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right. Right as in upstanding morality...Because, with all of this introspection coupled with all this isolation in the past few months, you walk a dangerous line of coming to really stunning conclusions or falling into the trap of thinking that you're right all the time because you've had nobody better to compare yourself to. And this isn't just you - anybody would need to watch himself on this issue.
The proposition that logic, evidence and experience determining rightness, ironically, is one of the biggest lessons that I learned in debate. And as such, it is something I have been giving a good deal of thought to over the last month or two (in trying to teach debate at Metro)... and this comment just so happens to illustrate something that I would like to challenge with a theory of my own.
With regards to "right" and also with regards to those "better", or rather, those more knowledgeable or more skilled in discourse or philosophizing than me... I will respond with a story:
When I was at Grove City College, I had this theology professor, an older guy, I think in his 70s, maybe 60s, who taught three of my theology classes. He had his doctorate from Princeton, and was a devout Calvinist. With regards to predestination, he had books and books of evidence, as well as extrapolations from scripture, to prove that he was "right". He has been teaching college for 30 years, he is one of the most intelligent theologians at Grove City, and his office is simply a labyrinth of books at best. I must have listened to hours and hours of a dissertation style proposition and defense of several concepts within scripture, and the resultant truths that he concluded, from years of study and experience, as to the Truth of our relationship with God, with man, and with ourself.... and yet, at the end of the day, he was wrong.
I say this plainly because the idea is simple. This is not an exception to the rule. There are thousands of theologians around the world who have proven their truth. All it takes is a listening ear to know that God does not exist, that God does exist, that God does not care about humanity, that God does care about humanity, that salvation is a myth, that salvation is eternal life with God, that it comes by faith, that it comes by work, that Jesus was a prophet, that Jesus was the son of God.
It appears that rightness is sloppy at best in the field of philosophy and theology. The rules of math do not seem to apply. (Ironically, the rules of math, that there is this provable right and wrong, only apply in simple math. Ask any person who has studied advanced math or physics, and they will tell you that anything beyond simply math is all guess work and approximations at best.)
The point I am trying to contend here is simple. The biggest thing that I learned from being in debate is that: just because someone wins an argument or has more legitimate evidence, does not mean they are right.
Tragic, I know. It kind of rocks the boat of Truth. The reason why I contend this is simple. I do not want to think that anything I hold to be right or true is such because it is an extrapolation of evidence or experience. While I hold both of those in high regards, because of my knowledge of their manipulability, I can not find in them adequate grounds to hold something to be in the realm of "I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right". To me, evidence, experience, and even logic itself is flexible. I should know, as I have often been the flexor to it time and again over the last several years. Morality included, ask any history major, fluxes with time.
Well, then, what are we left with... Should we simply become but existentialist, believing truth and value to only exist as we feel it should? Do we try and define our own reality from the columns of our insanity? I do not think that is or only option.
To me, as it will forever be, Truth resonates within the soul. This is not a contention, an opinion, or a proposition. This is a fact, or more appropriately, a Truth. In the Kingdom of God, Truth resonates within our spirit.
Today I watched Equilibrium, a dystopia wherein society is "saved" by being stripped of its emotion. Such a decision was necessary, as emotion leads to hate and thus war. The contention was simply, that humanity, as a race, will not survive emotion.... one of the primary contention of the film is that emotion is what makes life worth living. A caste or level system is established, wherein basic human function is at the bottom of the ladder, with emotion being at the top. While one can exist without emotion, such a disposition also strips them of their identity and humanity. Without emotion, life becomes pointless.
On the same tune, I will project my own theory, as an extrapolation from the Truth that I know about this world.... While basic human existence is at the bottom, and emotion is surely necessary to be fully human, I do not find it hard to contend that operation within the spiritual realm is what makes life worth living, and thus the top rung of the social latter. To me, as marriage is to illustrate a relationship between man and God, I do also believe that human emotion is to illustrate a relationship between the flesh and the spirit. Marriage demonstrates a bond between two people, and thus demonstrates our bond with God. In the same way, human emotion demonstrates that there is an unpredictable, intangible to life that makes it worth living, thus showing us that there is a Truth that exist outside of our capacity for understanding.
Simply put, it would take a foolish man to believe that he could understand the world. It is wise man that knows that he can not understand the workings of the world, and thus intelligently adjusts his disposition accordingly. The release of cognitive control of our micro universe is not an act of stupidity or surrender, but rather an act of intelligence. While it may seem that the safest way to live life is without emotion, Equilibrium strongly contends that emotion is worth the risk. In the same way, while it most certainly seems that it is safest to live life rejecting things of the spirit, the kingdom of God contends that the ways God are certainly worth the risk.
In the here and now, the Bible speaks of a war, not of peace. While I certainly view piece as our target, and strongly contended that in the hereafter, there will be eternal peace with God, until then, I believe that our strategies of hiding our heads in the sand simply will not do. Unfortunately for us, there is no Canada to move away to in the fight for Truth. In reality, there is the choice to fight, or to slip away into nothingness, eternally forgotten.
In response to Anonymous, I assure you, I will be teaching only that which I know to be True. However, I should also inform you that such Truth was not arrived upon because of any book, or scripture, or life lesson. Rather, it was a culmination of all of the above, with its Truth sorted by the resonance I feel within myself as part of the Kingdom of God.
****************************
I do offer one final comment to anonymous.... I do value peer input in life. While I do believe that by the spirit, we can distinguish Truth from untruth, the does not mean that I or we can spontaneously construct or regurgitate truth. For whatever reason, I do strongly believe that we are social creatures, instructed to live a social life.
With that in mind, I would ask you for your continued input on my earth shattering ideas. And please, if you objected to one of my ideas, give me convincing reasons why, so that we can discuss concepts in their entirety and not simply throw around shocking phrases or titles like only amateurs would. If logic, evidence, scripture, and experience are what you believe to determine "rightness", then when you object to the rightness of any of my ideas, please respond with adequate quantities of each so that we can have a full conversation.
purpose of blogging
Today in class we discussed the purpose of blogging. Opinions aside, this is what I feel is the purpose of blogging:
Blogging is an attempt to communicate. In today's market, there are a variety of ways that an individual can express their self and communicate with the outside world. Blogging is a way to communicate, without interruption, a single or stream of thoughts or ideas to an audience that cares enough to at least read what you have written, without being obligated to continue reading/ listening by social formalities.
Within the blogosphere, social cordialities, for better or for worse, take a back seat to the transfer of information. While this unfortunately develops individuals into malformed social entities, until then, it does hold the capacity for unadulterated communication, for whatever purpose one would have to communicate.
Within the world of communication, people convey thoughts, emotions and ideas for both good and bad reasons. Recognizing blogging as a medium/ method allows us to then remove the negative connotations from blogging to view it in proper light. In other words, before we negatively evaluate blogs, we should perhaps first take into consideration the general stereotype of bloggers by whom's blogs we are judging the great blogosphere that is.
Source aside, I do believe that blogging both has its advantages, as listed above, as well as its disadvantages, which I believe to still be within the bounds of disadvantage that a book must overcome. As long as we as a society can find value in literature, I believe, if viewed properly, we can also find great value in blogs.
The question now is, what is proper social etiquette in the great world of blog.
Blogging is an attempt to communicate. In today's market, there are a variety of ways that an individual can express their self and communicate with the outside world. Blogging is a way to communicate, without interruption, a single or stream of thoughts or ideas to an audience that cares enough to at least read what you have written, without being obligated to continue reading/ listening by social formalities.
Within the blogosphere, social cordialities, for better or for worse, take a back seat to the transfer of information. While this unfortunately develops individuals into malformed social entities, until then, it does hold the capacity for unadulterated communication, for whatever purpose one would have to communicate.
Within the world of communication, people convey thoughts, emotions and ideas for both good and bad reasons. Recognizing blogging as a medium/ method allows us to then remove the negative connotations from blogging to view it in proper light. In other words, before we negatively evaluate blogs, we should perhaps first take into consideration the general stereotype of bloggers by whom's blogs we are judging the great blogosphere that is.
Source aside, I do believe that blogging both has its advantages, as listed above, as well as its disadvantages, which I believe to still be within the bounds of disadvantage that a book must overcome. As long as we as a society can find value in literature, I believe, if viewed properly, we can also find great value in blogs.
The question now is, what is proper social etiquette in the great world of blog.
Friday, April 04, 2008
hope quotes
To me, hope makes life worth living. Whether that hope is an idealism, or a subconscious dream... to me, as it will forever be, hope makes life worth living.
Below I have two quotes on hope. The first is self-insipiring. The second is the reason why I am leaving my family to go and fill my own cup. I hope you enjoy them.
And the second...
Below I have two quotes on hope. The first is self-insipiring. The second is the reason why I am leaving my family to go and fill my own cup. I hope you enjoy them.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
-Alexander Pope,
And the second...
Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another you have only an extemporaneous half possession...
Do that which is assigned to you, and you cannot hope too much or dare too much.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Meyers-Briggs Personality
Following the lead of my friend Shayna... I decided to take a personality type test. I have taken this one before, and achieved the same result... so this should be fairly accurate. What do you think?
The Portait of the Teacher (ENFJ)
The Idealists called Teachers are abstract in their thought and speech, cooperative in their style of achieving goals, and directive and extraverted in their interpersonal relations. Learning in the young has to be beckoned forth, teased out from its hiding place, or, as suggested by the word "education," it has to be "educed." by an individual with educative capabilities. Such a one is the eNFj, thus rightly called the educative mentor or Teacher for short. The Teacher is especially capable of educing or calling forth those inner potentials each learner possesses. Even as children the Teachers may attract a gathering of other children ready to follow their lead in play or work. And they lead without seeming to do so.
Teachers expect the very best of those around them, and this expectation, usually expressed as enthusiastic encouragement, motivates action in others and the desire to live up to their expectations. Teachers have the charming characteristic of taking for granted that their expectations will be met, their implicit commands obeyed, never doubting that people will want to do what they suggest. And, more often than not, people do, because this type has extraordinary charisma.
The Teachers are found in no more than 2 or 3 percent of the population. They like to have things settled and arranged. They prefer to plan both work and social engagements ahead of time and tend to be absolutely reliable in honoring these commitments. At the same time, Teachers are very much at home in complex situations which require the juggling of much data with little pre-planning. An experienced Teacher group leader can dream up, effortlessly, and almost endlessly, activities for groups to engage in, and stimulating roles for members of the group to play. In some Teachers, inspired by the responsiveness of their students or followers, this can amount to genius which other types find hard to emulate. Such ability to preside without planning reminds us somewhat of an Provider, but the latter acts more as a master of ceremonies than as a leader of groups. Providers are natural hosts and hostesses, making sure that each guest is well looked after at social gatherings, or that the right things are expressed on traditional occasions, such as weddings, funerals, graduations, and the like. In much the same way, Teachers value harmonious human relations about all else, can handle people with charm and concern, and are usually popular wherever they are. But Teachers are not so much social as educational leaders, interested primarily in the personal growth and development of others, and less in attending to their social needs.
Mikhail Gorbachev, Oprah Winfrey, Pope John Paul II, Ralph Nader, John Wooden, and Margaret Mead are examples of Teacher Idealists.
**********************************************************************
All Idealists share the following core characteristics:
* Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, seek their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.
* Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.
* Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal journeys and human potentials.
* Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.
Idealists as a temperament, are passionately concerned with personal growth and development. Idealists strive to discover who they are and how they can become their best possible self--always this quest for self-knowledge and self-improvement drives their imagination. And they want to help others make the journey. Idealists are naturally drawn to working with people, and whether in education or counseling, in social services or personnel work, in journalism or the ministry, they are gifted at helping others find their way in life, often inspiring them to grow as individuals and to fulfill their potentials.
The Portait of the Teacher (ENFJ)
The Idealists called Teachers are abstract in their thought and speech, cooperative in their style of achieving goals, and directive and extraverted in their interpersonal relations. Learning in the young has to be beckoned forth, teased out from its hiding place, or, as suggested by the word "education," it has to be "educed." by an individual with educative capabilities. Such a one is the eNFj, thus rightly called the educative mentor or Teacher for short. The Teacher is especially capable of educing or calling forth those inner potentials each learner possesses. Even as children the Teachers may attract a gathering of other children ready to follow their lead in play or work. And they lead without seeming to do so.
Teachers expect the very best of those around them, and this expectation, usually expressed as enthusiastic encouragement, motivates action in others and the desire to live up to their expectations. Teachers have the charming characteristic of taking for granted that their expectations will be met, their implicit commands obeyed, never doubting that people will want to do what they suggest. And, more often than not, people do, because this type has extraordinary charisma.
The Teachers are found in no more than 2 or 3 percent of the population. They like to have things settled and arranged. They prefer to plan both work and social engagements ahead of time and tend to be absolutely reliable in honoring these commitments. At the same time, Teachers are very much at home in complex situations which require the juggling of much data with little pre-planning. An experienced Teacher group leader can dream up, effortlessly, and almost endlessly, activities for groups to engage in, and stimulating roles for members of the group to play. In some Teachers, inspired by the responsiveness of their students or followers, this can amount to genius which other types find hard to emulate. Such ability to preside without planning reminds us somewhat of an Provider, but the latter acts more as a master of ceremonies than as a leader of groups. Providers are natural hosts and hostesses, making sure that each guest is well looked after at social gatherings, or that the right things are expressed on traditional occasions, such as weddings, funerals, graduations, and the like. In much the same way, Teachers value harmonious human relations about all else, can handle people with charm and concern, and are usually popular wherever they are. But Teachers are not so much social as educational leaders, interested primarily in the personal growth and development of others, and less in attending to their social needs.
Mikhail Gorbachev, Oprah Winfrey, Pope John Paul II, Ralph Nader, John Wooden, and Margaret Mead are examples of Teacher Idealists.
**********************************************************************
All Idealists share the following core characteristics:
* Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, seek their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.
* Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.
* Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal journeys and human potentials.
* Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.
Idealists as a temperament, are passionately concerned with personal growth and development. Idealists strive to discover who they are and how they can become their best possible self--always this quest for self-knowledge and self-improvement drives their imagination. And they want to help others make the journey. Idealists are naturally drawn to working with people, and whether in education or counseling, in social services or personnel work, in journalism or the ministry, they are gifted at helping others find their way in life, often inspiring them to grow as individuals and to fulfill their potentials.
addendum to choice
Just to be clear... I do see the heart of what Anonymous was trying to say with their comment... that I should only teach truth and not simply brainwash people with speculation... to that, I assure you that I most usually draw clear lines, in any conversation, between speculation and what I hold to be true.
I do thank you for your words of wisdom though, as I have had the tendency in the past to simply try and convince everyone of every new thought in my head....
Okay, I think my position is clear... I hope my last post was not offensive... lol
I do thank you for your words of wisdom though, as I have had the tendency in the past to simply try and convince everyone of every new thought in my head....
Okay, I think my position is clear... I hope my last post was not offensive... lol
people and their choice
The beautiful thing about the state of humanity is that we are defined by our capacity to make decisions. While some would argue that a person becomes more and more capable of of making "better decisions" as they grow older, I suppose that you could also argue the opposite, that as people within a society grow older, they not only become more "stuck in their ways" (for better or for worse), but there is a general indoctrination that occurs by one person being within the same group for a long enough period of time. No matter how "independent" you may be, your peers inevitably will have an effect on your life... pushing you towards something they endorse, or away from it by your own observation and decision to not follow such a lifestyle.
What separates us from all of creation, including the animals is that we have a distinct and capable ability to choose. So great is this capacity, that God even hangs our eternity upon the ability to make a decision. Granted, he does help to influence the decision by allowing us to make a decision through a pre-fall mindset (with the aid of the Holy Spirit), but at the end of the day, it is our choice.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that "choice" is the very thing that defines us as individuals. While we are all born with different traits and characteristics, I strongly believe that we define our own identity by the decisions that we make day in and day out. Call me crazy, but I believe that you can choose the type of person you want to be in life.
From a Christian view, I believe this is what salvation is all about. I do not believe that salvation is simply choosing between heaven or a lake of fire... but rather that we are here on earth, given a lifetime to decide if we want a relationship with God. If we choose yes, then after our death, we are given eternity with Him. If we choose no, then God, in his benevolence, allows his creation to live in eternal separation from Him. While this is often discribed as a "lake of fire", I am totally fine with that discription being metaphorical, as a Christian would surely view eternity with out God to be a lake of fire. To those who reject the Christian truth, they are given what they asked for, to finally be left alone for all of eternity.
At the end of the day though, the concept of salvation, to me, is all about choosing God or rejecting Him. To those that choose God, they will get what they want (by the mercy and grace of God). To those who reject Him, they will be forever left alone. While such a decision breaks my heart over and again, it is still their choice, and one only they can make. Sorry to any Calvinist out there, but I fail to believe that God forces anyone to accept Him.
In response to an Anonymous post on my last entry, requesting that I be completely sure of whatever I am teaching... I say thank you, but no thank you. I do not think it is necessary to fully verify everything that I "teach" to the nth degree. Every day, I will go out into the world with the Truth that I know, and the humbleness of knowing that I am still maturing as a person. With regards to my interaction to society, I would hope that at the end of the day, someone found some trait or piece of information in me worth holding on to. If not, then I would hope that I showed them something or someone that they did NOT want to be later in life.... While it is always good to lead by example, I dont think that example must always be the correct example.
At the end of the day, people must decide for their own self what truth or principles they are willing to accept and implement into their own life. If they do not accept what I am offering, then I hope that they at least make a decision in another direction so as to get them out of the luke-warmness of indecision.
When I said that I wanted to teach no matter where I am going or what I am doing, I mean that as a person, I want to challenge people to change and evolve. The direction that evolution goes, however, is their decision not mine.
That being said, I do ensure you reader that I push people only in the directions that I believe to be correct and true. It would be absolutely horrible if I were simply manipulating people in a direction of evil or injustice. If that were the case, then certainly your comment would hold weight. However, as of now, for whatever it is worth, I ensure you that I am not out to manipulate any of the people that I come in contact with. My job, as a friend to those I meet, is to push people to finally own their thoughts, own their faith, and own their identity. Whoever they end up being later in life, I want it to be their choice, and not simply a byproduct of the indoctrination of our society.
Whether or not you agree with society's projection of truth, I think you can agree that it is important that every citizen to hold their own beliefs for their own reasons, and not simply try to "fit in with the mold" because the mold exists.
At the end of the day, I want people to know where they stand in life, instead of being pushed around by one good sounding philosophy after another. I would hate for anyone to show up on judgement day saying "maybe".
What separates us from all of creation, including the animals is that we have a distinct and capable ability to choose. So great is this capacity, that God even hangs our eternity upon the ability to make a decision. Granted, he does help to influence the decision by allowing us to make a decision through a pre-fall mindset (with the aid of the Holy Spirit), but at the end of the day, it is our choice.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that "choice" is the very thing that defines us as individuals. While we are all born with different traits and characteristics, I strongly believe that we define our own identity by the decisions that we make day in and day out. Call me crazy, but I believe that you can choose the type of person you want to be in life.
From a Christian view, I believe this is what salvation is all about. I do not believe that salvation is simply choosing between heaven or a lake of fire... but rather that we are here on earth, given a lifetime to decide if we want a relationship with God. If we choose yes, then after our death, we are given eternity with Him. If we choose no, then God, in his benevolence, allows his creation to live in eternal separation from Him. While this is often discribed as a "lake of fire", I am totally fine with that discription being metaphorical, as a Christian would surely view eternity with out God to be a lake of fire. To those who reject the Christian truth, they are given what they asked for, to finally be left alone for all of eternity.
At the end of the day though, the concept of salvation, to me, is all about choosing God or rejecting Him. To those that choose God, they will get what they want (by the mercy and grace of God). To those who reject Him, they will be forever left alone. While such a decision breaks my heart over and again, it is still their choice, and one only they can make. Sorry to any Calvinist out there, but I fail to believe that God forces anyone to accept Him.
In response to an Anonymous post on my last entry, requesting that I be completely sure of whatever I am teaching... I say thank you, but no thank you. I do not think it is necessary to fully verify everything that I "teach" to the nth degree. Every day, I will go out into the world with the Truth that I know, and the humbleness of knowing that I am still maturing as a person. With regards to my interaction to society, I would hope that at the end of the day, someone found some trait or piece of information in me worth holding on to. If not, then I would hope that I showed them something or someone that they did NOT want to be later in life.... While it is always good to lead by example, I dont think that example must always be the correct example.
At the end of the day, people must decide for their own self what truth or principles they are willing to accept and implement into their own life. If they do not accept what I am offering, then I hope that they at least make a decision in another direction so as to get them out of the luke-warmness of indecision.
When I said that I wanted to teach no matter where I am going or what I am doing, I mean that as a person, I want to challenge people to change and evolve. The direction that evolution goes, however, is their decision not mine.
That being said, I do ensure you reader that I push people only in the directions that I believe to be correct and true. It would be absolutely horrible if I were simply manipulating people in a direction of evil or injustice. If that were the case, then certainly your comment would hold weight. However, as of now, for whatever it is worth, I ensure you that I am not out to manipulate any of the people that I come in contact with. My job, as a friend to those I meet, is to push people to finally own their thoughts, own their faith, and own their identity. Whoever they end up being later in life, I want it to be their choice, and not simply a byproduct of the indoctrination of our society.
Whether or not you agree with society's projection of truth, I think you can agree that it is important that every citizen to hold their own beliefs for their own reasons, and not simply try to "fit in with the mold" because the mold exists.
At the end of the day, I want people to know where they stand in life, instead of being pushed around by one good sounding philosophy after another. I would hate for anyone to show up on judgement day saying "maybe".
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
good people
I just want to turn out good people.
No matter how short a time I have with someone, or some group of people... when the conversation or our time together is over, I just want to know that after everything is said and done, and they have had time to think about that experience... in some way, they are a better person for having spent time with me.
My grandfather passed away when I was a senior in high school. For those of you who dont know... he was a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, and a war vet in his lifetime. He left high school about half way through after winning the national science fair. Ironically, he has his law degree and medical degree, but no high school diploma. During his life, he taught at a college, he was a medical doctor for several years, then finally he spent several years as a lawyer, specializing in cases dealing with advanced medical issues.
Right before my grandfather passed away, my father asked him a question. "If you could do it all again, what would you do differently?" His response was that he would have spent far more time teaching than just being a doctor or a lawyer.
I think I am beginning to understand what he was getting at. It fells good to feed into peoples life. It doesn't have to be teaching a class, or lecturing a friend. I think you can teach (perhaps more effectively) without ever opening your mouth. Wherever I go, whatever I am doing, I would like to be teaching the best principles that I know.
That is my life goal.
No matter how short a time I have with someone, or some group of people... when the conversation or our time together is over, I just want to know that after everything is said and done, and they have had time to think about that experience... in some way, they are a better person for having spent time with me.
My grandfather passed away when I was a senior in high school. For those of you who dont know... he was a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, and a war vet in his lifetime. He left high school about half way through after winning the national science fair. Ironically, he has his law degree and medical degree, but no high school diploma. During his life, he taught at a college, he was a medical doctor for several years, then finally he spent several years as a lawyer, specializing in cases dealing with advanced medical issues.
Right before my grandfather passed away, my father asked him a question. "If you could do it all again, what would you do differently?" His response was that he would have spent far more time teaching than just being a doctor or a lawyer.
I think I am beginning to understand what he was getting at. It fells good to feed into peoples life. It doesn't have to be teaching a class, or lecturing a friend. I think you can teach (perhaps more effectively) without ever opening your mouth. Wherever I go, whatever I am doing, I would like to be teaching the best principles that I know.
That is my life goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
